First its HBO, now its DLH
Some may consider this a rant, but I am asking for your serious consideration...
First HBO tells us not to pay attention to the belts because they don't matter and the Ring belt is what counts. But they continue to call their show 'Championship' boxing.
They just had what can be considered a prelude tournament at LW, just like what we are about to see this weekend at WW. The winners were supposed to fight each other, right? Then why is Nate Campbell out of the next LW tournament?
Well, they say this tournament is supposedly for the Ring belt, but the magazine is now owned by GoldnBoy, who is promoting the next tournament... What can we now say about the legitimacy of the Ring title?
What are we seeing transpire at this time in boxing when the rules are so completely far away from what first created the sport?
Re: First its HBO, now its DLH
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ArawakWarria
What are we seeing transpire at this time in boxing when the rules are so completely far away from what first created the sport?
Well, let's be fair, because this isn't entirely true. Throughout the entire history of boxing, there have always been issues when it came to belts and deserving fighters not getting title shots.
The difference between then and now is that there are multiple belts in each division. That's different. But controversy regarding what's a legit title fight and what's not... that's been a part of boxing forever.
Re: First its HBO, now its DLH
Quote:
Originally Posted by
SweetPea
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ArawakWarria
What are we seeing transpire at this time in boxing when the rules are so completely far away from what first created the sport?
Well, let's be fair, because this isn't entirely true. Throughout the entire history of boxing, there have always been issues when it came to belts and deserving fighters not getting title shots.
The difference between then and now is that there are multiple belts in each division. That's different. But controversy regarding what's a legit title fight and what's not... that's been a part of boxing forever.
Well said, but that doesn't explain the elimination fights for the mandatory to the Interim title, or the fact that the WBA has a Super, Regular, and Interim position for all of their champs.
With Ring, it used to be that at least a group of people had a way to determine contention/ranking. IMO, the group will remain, but their identity will probably become very pro GldnBy (if it is not already that way now). Complete control of an oranization is very rarely beneficial for anyone but the owner. History also demonstrates that.
On a larger scale, I want to know if this whole 'don't pay attention to the belts' sentiment promoted on US tv has become prevalent in other countries... Do your commentators try to shun the belts in favor of the Ring title?
Re: First its HBO, now its DLH
If there is some kind of lw tournament for anything and theyre leaving out Campbell, its total bullshit. Notice Casamayor, Kats, and now Diaz are all GBP, and none of them want anything to do with Campbell. This is why I hate Golden Girl Promotions. Well I wouldn't say hate, but I suspect theres alot of shady shit going on. Shit Don King is looking like a choirboy compared to ODLH lately.
Re: First its HBO, now its DLH
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ArawakWarria
Quote:
Originally Posted by
SweetPea
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ArawakWarria
What are we seeing transpire at this time in boxing when the rules are so completely far away from what first created the sport?
Well, let's be fair, because this isn't entirely true. Throughout the entire history of boxing, there have always been issues when it came to belts and deserving fighters not getting title shots.
The difference between then and now is that there are multiple belts in each division. That's different. But controversy regarding what's a legit title fight and what's not... that's been a part of boxing forever.
Well said, but that doesn't explain the elimination fights for the mandatory to the Interim title, or the fact that the WBA has a Super, Regular, and Interim position for all of their champs.
With Ring, it used to be that at least a group of people had a way to determine contention/ranking. IMO, the group will remain, but their identity will probably become very pro GldnBy (if it is not already that way now). Complete control of an oranization is very rarely beneficial for anyone but the owner. History also demonstrates that.
On a larger scale, I want to know if this whole 'don't pay attention to the belts' sentiment promoted on US tv has become prevalent in other countries... Do your commentators try to shun the belts in favor of the Ring title?
That all started right before ODLH bought the Ring. I remeber seeing him and Hagler on ESPN and ODLH was talkng about the Ring being the bible of boxing and the true fans champion. Hagler said he just wanted all the belts and would value them all ;D
Re: First its HBO, now its DLH
I definitely agree. Oscar is no better than Don King or Bob Arum and will probably smear boxing further.
In any other sport it would be seen as corruption for a promoter to buy the most prestigious magazine who claims to have the most meaningful belt and to then sign a mega money contract with that sport's premier broadcasting network and then to hire lapdogs like Kellerman to attempt to legitimatise the Ring belt above all others at every opportunity.
I'm sick of hearing Buffer announce fights as being for the Ring championship and Kellerman pushing that belt like its the only title that counts.
Re: First its HBO, now its DLH
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bilbo
I definitely agree. Oscar is no better than Don King or Bob Arum and will probably smear boxing further.
In any other sport it would be seen as corruption for a promoter to buy the most prestigious magazine who claims to have the most meaningful belt and to then sign a mega money contract with that sport's premier broadcasting network and then to hire lapdogs like Kellerman to attempt to legitimatise the Ring belt above all others at every opportunity.
I'm sick of hearing Buffer announce fights as being for the Ring championship and Kellerman pushing that belt like its the only title that counts.
What true boxing fan could be against The Ring?
Do you disagree with its rankings?
Do think that titles should be stripped and passed from one champion to another with out fighting?
Do you like having 4 champions in every division?
The Ring isn’t doing anything new, they are just trying to go back about 30 years before the proliferation of the alphabet gangs where a champion was champion until he lost. Then the guy who beat him was champion. This WAS boxing for over a hundred years.
It was simple system with no room for interpretation, and boxing benefited.
Re: First its HBO, now its DLH
Quote:
Originally Posted by
lance Uppercut
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bilbo
I definitely agree. Oscar is no better than Don King or Bob Arum and will probably smear boxing further.
In any other sport it would be seen as corruption for a promoter to buy the most prestigious magazine who claims to have the most meaningful belt and to then sign a mega money contract with that sport's premier broadcasting network and then to hire lapdogs like Kellerman to attempt to legitimatise the Ring belt above all others at every opportunity.
I'm sick of hearing Buffer announce fights as being for the Ring championship and Kellerman pushing that belt like its the only title that counts.
What true boxing fan could be against The Ring?
Do you disagree with its rankings?
Do think that titles should be stripped and passed from one champion to another with out fighting?
Do you like having 4 champions in every division?
The Ring isn’t doing anything new, they are just trying to go back about 30 years before the proliferation of the alphabet gangs where a champion was champion until he lost. Then the guy who beat him was champion. This WAS boxing for over a hundred years.
It was simple system with no room for interpretation, and boxing benefited.
I agree 100%.
The biggest thing stopping boxing becoming main stream again is 4 world champs per division.
The Ring system is not perfect but at least you know where you stand.
Re: First its HBO, now its DLH
Quote:
Originally Posted by
porkypara
Quote:
Originally Posted by
lance Uppercut
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bilbo
I definitely agree. Oscar is no better than Don King or Bob Arum and will probably smear boxing further.
In any other sport it would be seen as corruption for a promoter to buy the most prestigious magazine who claims to have the most meaningful belt and to then sign a mega money contract with that sport's premier broadcasting network and then to hire lapdogs like Kellerman to attempt to legitimatise the Ring belt above all others at every opportunity.
I'm sick of hearing Buffer announce fights as being for the Ring championship and Kellerman pushing that belt like its the only title that counts.
What true boxing fan could be against The Ring?
Do you disagree with its rankings?
Do think that titles should be stripped and passed from one champion to another with out fighting?
Do you like having 4 champions in every division?
The Ring isn’t doing anything new, they are just trying to go back about 30 years before the proliferation of the alphabet gangs where a champion was champion until he lost. Then the guy who beat him was champion. This WAS boxing for over a hundred years.
It was simple system with no room for interpretation, and boxing benefited.
I agree 100%.
The biggest thing stopping boxing becoming main stream again is
4 world champs per division.
The Ring system is not perfect but at least you know where you stand.
exactly.
Re: First its HBO, now its DLH
Quote:
Originally Posted by
lance Uppercut
What true boxing fan could be against The Ring?
Okay, I'll take that bait. I am not against The Ring, but I am against people putting them on too high a piedestal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
lance Uppercut
Do you disagree with its rankings?
Sometimes. As for any other ranking system, once in a while the rankings are visibly flawed. Other times people might just disagree for subjective reasons.
However, it should be obvious to everyone that whatever subjective ranking system a bunch of guys at a magazine have put in order it is always going to have limitations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
lance Uppercut
Do think that titles should be stripped and passed from one champion to another with out fighting?
I do. Mandatories is a good concept. The problem with modern boxing isnt that mandatories as such are bad, it is the fact that some of the boxers who gain this status suck.
Sure, it is true nowadays that voluntary defenses often has higher sporting value (as demanded by fans and tv money) than mandatories, but it does not need to be so.
[Thought experiment: Give the title to Sven Ottke or Pongsaklek Whatshisname and tell them they can fight whoever they want, and wait to see who they chooses]
Also, I think it is only fair that a fighter needs to defend his title whithin a given time span. Enough boxers go in and out of retirement every so often, having a fixed date for when they get stripped is only good all things considered (yes, I know, the alphabet gangs - case in point the WBC Champion Emeritus - and exactly living up to this either, but I am trying to answer 'in principle')
Quote:
Originally Posted by
lance Uppercut
Do you like having 4 champions in every division?
I like champs who prove that they are the best in their division by actually fighting their competitors. So, no I prefer unified champs.
But this is a trick question. 4 champs (and sometimes more :-X) is not at all good for boxing, but awarding all power to a random [1] magazine doesn't have to be the solution either. And no matter what you say, the fact that GBP owns the magazine _does_ compromise it's integrity.
[I am exaggerating here]
